Worker complained he was singled out because of his race
This instalment of You Make the Call features a municipal worker who complained of racial discrimination and harassment at work.
Phillip Johnson was born in Trinidad and came to Canada in 1967. He became employed as a part-time recreation worker for the City of Toronto in 2001.
In February 2011, Johnson picked up a bottle of what he thought was glass cleaner, but the bottle was broken and it contained bleach. The bleach splashed onto his clothes and just missed his eyes. He filed an incident report, saying three custodians about whom he had complained had harassed him before because of his race did it, but the matter wasn’t pursued by the city.
A short time later, the city moved the custodians to different locations and wage harmonization was implemented. Johnson’s hours and rate of pay were reduced as the city determined many employees were being overpaid and not according to their wage code. Johnson felt the reductions were retaliation for his discrimination and harassment allegations. In addition, he had applied for other positions and was denied, which he also felt was retaliation.
In September 2012, Johnson requested bereavement leave to attend his aunt’s funeral in Chicago, but the request was denied because the collective agreement didn’t cover paid bereavement leave for aunts. His supervisor also called him a disgruntled employee when he failed to make sufficient efforts to take first aid training.
A month later, a supervisor saw Johnson in uniform talking to a youth at the centre’s front desk, telling the youth to do the right thing and stay in school. The supervisor told him that staff don’t typically counsel youth while on duty if they weren’t a social worker or counsellor. Soon after, the supervisor emailed him to remind him he wasn’t supposed to offer “life counselling or advice while wearing a city uniform” as it could give the wrong impression to the public.
Soon after, Johnson learned that one of the custodians about whom he had complained about was going to be transferred back to the recreation centre where he worked. Johnson went on an unpaid leave of absence and didn’t return.
Johnson’s union filed a complaint claiming the city failed to provide a workplace free of harassment and discrimination, and intimidation.
You Make the Call
Was Johnson a victim of harassment and discrimination?
OR
Was Johnson too sensitive and the city met its duty to keep its workplace free of harassment and discrimimation?
IF YOU SAID Johnson was too sensitive and the city did enough to maintain a workplace free of harassment and discrimination, you’re right. The arbitrator found there was no evidence the broken bleach bottle incident involved the custodians or that it was an attempt to harass or intimidate Johnson. There was also no evidence the reductions in pay and hours were related to Johnson’s complaints, as it was a city initiative to harmonize wages that affected many employees, not just Johnson. The arbitrator found the reductions were made for business reasons and not intended to harass or discriminate Johnson, said the arbitrator.
The arbitrator also found the reprimand for talking to the youth stemmed from city policy and the supervisor was acting “within the prerogatives of a manager.” The denial of paid bereavement leave for Johnson’s aunt’s funeral was also in line with the collective agreement, which applied equally to all employees. Johnson was still permitted to take unpaid leave and if he felt wronged he could have grieved the decision at the time, said the arbitrator.
The other instances also lacked evidence of discrimination and harassment, as a comment calling Johnson a disgruntled employee wasn’t uncalled for in the context of the situation and some of the jobs for which Johnson applied he wasn’t qualified for.
The arbitrator determined Johnson was not the victim of harassment or discrimination and dismissed the grievance.
“I appreciate from the evidence of (Johnson) that he believes that he has been harassed and discriminated against in the workplace by management and co-workers and that the employer has not taken steps to maintain a harassment and discrimination-free workplace,” said the arbitrator. “From my review however, and on an objective basis, the evidence is insufficient to establish the allegations set forth in the grievance.”
For more information see:
